Science and Religion

Roger J Carlson said:

For what it's worth, I am equally contemptuous of people who try to disprove science based on the Bible as I am those who try to disprove the Bible based on science.

Click to expand...

The Bible contains material claims as well as non-material claims. I believe that material claims whether sacred or not, lend themselves to material analysis, though the non-material claims clearly don't.

I think that the issue here is not suitability of analysis but breach of taboo. Profane material claims are subject to mundane analysis, but for some, sacred material claims aren't. Unfortunately, those who don't hold our beliefs won't honour our taboos. While there are people who hold Biblical mythology to be literal, historical truth, there will be others who will want to explore any material, historical claims using the methods best suited to do this. That may cause offense to the devout, but equally there are some personalities who find that asserting questionable mythology as physical fact gives them headaches.

My suggestion: avoid the contempt. Grit your teeth and smile. It's better for the digestion.

"Jesus Christ, this just made me go to the drunk thread".....

My mentor Luigi Cardinal Raimondi used to say that the Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.
I don't know if this saying is original to him but I never forgot it.
C

I believe the conflict between science and religion is one that is rooted in human ego.

Given our state of self awareness, we can't help but define the world through our own perceptions. In a sense, every person has an ego-centric view of things. This extends itself to our beliefs as the majority of people believe that their beliefs (on any issue) is correct while dissenting beliefs are wrong. Given that there are 6 billion people, simple math says that not everyone is right.

In terms of science vs. religion, when a person tries to extend one aspect into the other, that is usually when there is conflict.

The sole purpose of science (IMHO) is to merely explain 'how' things work. How being defined in the literal sense to encompass the technical 'why'. The sole purpose of religion (IMHO) is to establish a relationship between ourselves and the higher power that creating everything.

I have a scientific background and grew up religious and I do not see the conflict because I do not use one to validate or dispute the other.

It is my belief that science and religion are the 'same' thing, however given our extremely limited I.Q.s, limited sensory perceptors, the fact that spatially we are limited to 3 dimensions, only have a linear understanding/comprehension of time, and are limited by the uncertainty principle, etc. etc. it is my belief that it is merely beyond our comprehension to effectively merge the two, and thus, it is best for our limited quark sized brains (when taking the scope of the universe into account) that we don't try to mix them. It is best to just keep them separate as any attempt to merge the two would be akin to two snails trying to design, develop, and build a nuclear reactor-- in short, way way wayyyy beyond our ability.

Mel...

Okay, I know I'm going to get a lot of flak on this, but here goes -

I've always had a problem with religions that claim they are the only way. It seems a bit egotistical to me.

I was raised in an atmosphere where the church I attended was the enlightened one and all others just didn't have the whole story. There came a time when I matured and spent time studying religions from all over the world.

In all truth, I find myself in a situation now where I think there are kernels of truth in ALL religions. And, many varied religions/beliefs have similar stories. As an example, all North American native groups have stories of a great deluge similar to the one in the bible (and all of those predate the Europeans arriving in North America). Hum. Does that mean the great flood was an actual event possibly proven by scientific research? (I think signs have been found in various places around the world of such a flood.)

So, to me, every religion has kernels of truth. I, for one, do not find inspiration sitting in an edifice constructed by mand. If I wish to be close to my creator or even those loved ones who've gone beyond, I find a place constructed by the one who created this world. Have you ever stood amid the towering redwoods of Muir Woods? Or on an isolated shore watching birds swirl above the waves? Or looked out over the Grand Canyon? Or stood on flower strewn meadows high in the Austrian Alps on a beautiful Spring morning?

To me, those are the times when I care less about how they got there or who created them but how they fill my heart and soul with beauty.

For me, there has never been "conflict" between science and religion -- but I'm one who tries to see aesthetic value (I think my spirit is artistically inclined) in the mythological/narrative aspects of religion. Religions teach me something I don't always feel I'd understand scientifically. What's odd is that I am inquisitive, and sort of use the scientific method to weigh my beliefs against what is real. So I have much respect and admiration for scientists, even if I find their findings don't communicate meaning to me (and that's part of the fun of the spiritual journey: finding new meaning in new scientific discoveries or understandings).


Also, I read Benedict Spinoza (God or Nature concept) early on, when my mind was even more ripe to ideas. Then the Taoists, Zen Buddhists, and Presocratic philosophers put my head in a blender and I've been picking up the pieces since.



AMC

1) any particular worthwhile contribution of any particular science is not something any discussion in terms of religious evaluations can really address
2) an anthropological or even historical view of religion is going to violate the no-demeaning rules versus others views
3) the only fair way to cater to the general obsession with evaluating emotional responses (which amounts to performance art in very very very slow motion) is to have a fake science with an emotional response as its object

Click to expand...

And I think that's sort of what my religious life is like. I think it's because of the Zen Buddhists, who see science as a map of material reality and mythology as a map of emotional reality-- neither can possibly give us so detailed a map as to cover all of reality. So I can't say that what I read in say a Bible is literally, factually, or physically true, but at the same time, I can't say literal, factual, physical truths always give my life meaning. Sometimes, but not always.



AMC

I am a Christian and have no problems with science. I have found that science has opened up many of the things in my Christian walk.

I'm going to out my age by asking if anyone remembers the "NASA computer" that proved Joshua did see the sun stop in the sky because there was a day missing when scientists programmed the computer to run backwards to the beginning of time? I think that a planetarium was involved also. My Episcopal minister preached not one but two sermons on this "scientific proof" of God's existence and the inherent truth of the Bible. Most bizarre blending of religion and science I've ever heard.*

I will admit that the photos from Hubble have filled me with far more awe than any sermon or religious discussion over the past decade, but in general I don't have a problem with religion or science. It's the poo-flinging screechers at the extremes of both groups who make me crazy.


*And, yes, I did hold him in contempt at the time.

Roger J Carlson said:

For what it's worth, I am equally contemptuous of people who try to disprove science based on the Bible as I am those who try to disprove the Bible based on science.

Click to expand...

Most of the research scientists I know are deeply religious; all are deeply spiritual.

And I do not see a lot of reason to refer to "the Bible" vs "Science."

I do think that we have to be aware of the time and the language the Bible is written in. I do think it makes a difference that we mostly read the Bible in translation. And I do think it is important to note, for instance, that some of the time words used in the OT are only extant in those uses. They aren't used elsewhere; which means we don't really know what they mean.

What I find interesting, is that people in my profession which is engineering, are statistically the most religious group of scientists/researchers.

However, what I've found personally is that we're the most divided spiritually. It's like a 50/50 split between the strong believers in god, and those of us who don't believe in it. The strong believers make the argument of the seeming "order" of the world, where's the rest of us see the chaos that's masked by the seeming order.

In a sense, when you learn about the laws of thermodynamics, and can use those laws to prove certain things(for example the progression of time in one way), the class does have a kind of spiritual aspect to it. It's like attending a eulogy for the universe, in that you understand that everything that is, or ever will be, is subject to the same laws pertaining to entropy, and that everything will "die" someday. This genuinely bothers some people, but I think personally it appealed to me, because it sort of describes the finiteness of everything, even something so vast and powerful as the universe itself.


From a purely aesthetic viewpoint, I hope that the universe is periodic, and it cycles endlessly between death and rebirth(big crunch/big bang), as I find that the elegance of that is appealing. I really do hope that in collapsing on itself the universe somehow can shed all of that entropy, and be born anew, but I realize that what I find aesthetically appealing probably isn't going to be aligned with the hard reality of the world.

I think for the most part, this past century is one in which the average person has become acquainted with science.

Historically, the Church (Catholic church) has been at odds with Science since forever. Granted, humans have benefited from science for the past four hundred years, but science has really ingrained itself in all our lives starting about 150 yrs ago. In the last 80 years, sciences has increased exponentially.

My point?

We are 8 - 15 generations that has been acclimated to science, science is as much if not more a part of our lives than religion. It is only natural that more and more of us are comfortable with science and less and less of us find conflicts between science and religion.

So here is a question? At what point does religion become the endangered species and fall prey to science.

To me, the power of religion is 'faith'. Believing in something that has no hard evidence yet you know in your heart and soul it is right.

The power of science is 'proof'. The benefits of science enable me to type this message on this magical electronic screen that I can see and touch.

Is it inevitable that we gravitate towards the tangible and move away from the intangible?

Does anyone have any stats on atheism? Are atheists and agnostics increasing in numbers?

Mel...

I don't think one either has a "faith-based" or a "proof-based" outlook. We all have faith in some things and require proof for other. If we could only act on things we had personal and directly proved to be true nothing would ever get done. If we never required proof nothing would ever be learned.

Roger J Carlson said:

The definition of contempt is: the feeling with which a person regards anything considered mean, vile, or worthless; disdain; scorn. I don't consider such arguments "vile", but I do consider them "worthless".

Click to expand...

Spurn rather than scorn then, maybe; disgust more than contempt. What's the difference? I think it's this: we can have a productive conversation with someone whose thoughts disgust us, but not if we also scorn them.

I hate it when during a sermon a pastor will say, "Science tells us that..." and uses some study or research to prove some point. But then the next week dismisses science altogether during a sermon on Creation/Evolution.

Click to expand...

Weird. I've noticed religious speakers do that, but for some reason it doesn't offend me as it would in a seminar. I suppose I've formed the view that sermons aren't seminars -- they're intended to inspire more than inform, so I expect rhetoric in them just as I do in political speeches.

Since we're on the topic of scorn (however peripherally) only thing that ever seems to bother me about sermons is when they get scornful. I think it was Bishop Spong who suggested turning the sound off on early morning televangelists and just reading the emotions on their faces. It's quite disturbing to see how much scorn resides there. I've sat through scornful sermons at times -- actually, as an atheist and a secular humanist I've turned up to churches for the sake of friendship and sometimes been the target of scornful sermons. It's very unpleasant.

I also hate it when someone claims to disprove, say, the existence of God, when in fact all they can do is NOT show any evidence FOR the existence of God.

Click to expand...

If you scorn all rational arguments against God's existence then you can quickly come to the view that all atheists are deluded agnostics, and you'd be wrong.

Although there aren't scientific proofs against theism (i.e. there's no 'God experiment'), there are certainly rational and logical arguments against theism that may draw on scientific findings. And while science can't really tell us where everything came from to start with (if that question is even meaningful), it remains unscientific these days to say that God has made any material changes since. Such a claim would break the parsimony principle, and no self-respecting scientist of any faith would make such a claim. (ETA: I mean professionally -- plenty of reputable scientists speculate on such stuff privately.)

I am contemptuous of both (that is, find them both worthless).

Click to expand...

I've spent a painful couple of decades trying to school myself against my instinctive belief that everything I can't find use for merits my contempt. On some days it nearly works, and I find myself being able to view the marketers of ab-crunching machines, the guys who inflict windscreen-smearing on you at traffic-lights, and lovers of Harry Potter with something like compassion. Difficult though it can be, I commend the effort to you.

I think religions in some senses are already prey to science. The evangelicals who make up the vast majority of the "young earth creationists" are on the losing side of history. They represent the literal interpretation of a religious text, and I think that religions that follow that path are inevitably doomed, because science is currently and will continue to undermine them.

Science can evolve as new things are understood and discovered. A lot of religions typically don't, or can't. I do think that the religions that can evolve and are dogmatically flexible will probably survive as long as there are people around, but the ones that are insistent upon rigid behavior and thinking are going to gradually fade out.

The thing with science that I find interesting is that people are beginning to find a spiritual connection with science. Not necessarily in a traditional religious way, in that science doesn't really offer answers for some things that plague a lot of people(what happens when we die, etc.), but that it explains the reality of the universe we live in. For some people this is all they need, and as our scientific understanding continues to grow more people will probably be able to be "spiritually" fulfilled in this manner as they can start to see and understand how the reality works.

Dommo said:

I think religions in some senses are already prey to science. The evangelicals who make up the vast majority of the "young earth creationists" are on the losing side of history. They represent the literal interpretation of a religious text, and I think that religions that follow that path are inevitably doomed, because science is currently and will continue to undermine them.

Click to expand...

Some represent one literal interpretation. Not all evangelicals disregard the fossil record - nor does the Bible.

dgiharris said:

At what point does religion become the endangered species and fall prey to science.

Click to expand...

I really think that unlikely, DGI. Firstly, science isn't an enemy of religion; it's only when religions claim authority over historical fact or posit magical explanations for temporal phenomena that there's ever conflict. You might be interested in Stephen Jay Gould's view of the compatibility of religion and science, in which he talks about 'Non-overlapping magisteria'.

But even when there's conflict, religion is an important continuing part of humanity's search for meaning. It meets a deep, core need for many people. It's also well-established as a social underpinning of virtually all societies, and as a movement it's very resilient even when its institutions are oppressed. For instance, after decades of Communism, Russia (whose national creed during that period was atheism) now identifies at around 80% Russian orthodox (I can dig up the stat if there's interest).

Does anyone have any stats on atheism? Are atheists and agnostics increasing in numbers?

Click to expand...

The stats I've seen (e.g. here) have non-religious beliefs at around 12% globally; at national levels the stats I've seen range from around 3% through 30%, depending on the country. Longitudinally there's a gradual increase in atheism/agnosticism, a much bigger decrease in Christianity, and a lot of fragmentation into non-traditional and emergent faiths. (I don't have the stats to hand, but am happy to dig them up on request).

If you want a cause for the increase of non-religious belief I'd suggest that prosperity, security and secular education are probably at the centre. The more prosperous, peaceful and safe people are, the less they turn to religion. The more people learn, the more they question, and the more critical they get of their answers. Non-religious belief is especially high among scientists (I've seen a stat of 93%), and I think that's a combination of personality-types (skeptics love science) and education.

But it's clear from the stats that a rise in non-religious belief isn't the prime cause of failing Christianity -- I suspect that has a lot more to do with relevance and conflicts between traditional and modern values, traditional beliefs and modern lore.

Dommo said:

The thing with science that I find interesting is that people are beginning to find a spiritual connection with science.

Click to expand...

This isn't terribly new. Einstein and Newton felt a strong spiritual connection with science; Islam has long held that rational enquiry into the world is an act of worship and were among the first to found multi-denominational centres of learning; the ancient Greeks too found no disharmony between science and spirit. Colorado Guy doesn't feel a conflict, and I'm a rational materialist very happy to share my world with folk who believe otherwise; indeed I feel myself a grateful beneficiary of the vast effort that has gone into religious thought, even if I don't subscribe to the dogma.

Science/religion conflicts tend to nucleate on squabbles over temporal authority. Who gets to dictate the history? Who gets what say about natural lore? Who gets to shape the education? These are political questions that I think masquerade as ideological questions, as politics so often does.

My personal hope is that the great religions of the world will come to relax any stranglehold on myth and dogma, and do what they do best -- focus on human spiritual concerns. I see no problem at all teaching religion in schools; the only problem occurs when factions want monopoly control over the young.